The Roots of Success June 2008 - Volume 10 - Issue 3 Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved, The Showalter Group, Inc. Reproduction or redistribution without permission is strictly prohibited To read an html copy of this newsletter go to: http://www.showaltergroup.com/newsandtips/newsletter_june_2008.php ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research Results! The Bottom Line Value of Corporate Lobbying As you know, one of our abiding beliefs at I2M is to help you promote the value of the government relations function. Brett Kappel, from our lead I2M 2008 Co-host firm, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, www.vorys.com, alerted me to an article in Conde Nast Portfolio that, as Brett stated, "makes the arguments" for the value of lobbying: Copyright 2007-2008, The Showalter Group, Inc. Reproduction is prohibited without written permission. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PAC Fundraising in Tough Economic Times All breeds of fundraisers, specifically PAC fundraisers, are facing challenges, ostensibly due to current economic conditions. We say “ostensibly” because the economy represents another timely, convenient objection to PAC contributions. We aren’t sure that “the economy” is a true objection, or just another convenient excuse not to contribute. Nevertheless, it got us thinking about how to address the challenge. However, we are going to take a step back from the premise and look at the big picture before addressing the influence options. We disagree that fundraising difficulty, particularly in the business community, is all about tough economic times. The fact that corporate PAC contributions have remained very stable over the last 20 years, despite all of the shared “best practices,” is compelling evidence that there are other forces at work which impede big breakthroughs in PAC fundraising. Most recently it’s the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and let’s not forget the presidential candidates. Senator Barack Obama is not taking lobbyist-raised funds, and Senator John McCain is making sure no lobbyists are employed by his campaign. Our audiences are being told that the government affairs profession is not just a bit shady, but execrable. Building homes, giving away drugs, and planting trees will not stop the onslaught. Organizations who want to give back and in turn help improve their public image have been doing these types of projects for years--but has it blunted the negativity from popular culture, academia, and the media? Hardly. And let’s not forget movies and TV programs as drivers of culture and thought. When was the last time you saw a movie where a large organization was the “good guy?” In the minds of today’s public, big is the problem. Our PAC prospects may feel more allegiance to various causes that actively work against our organizations than to the source of their income. Drawing a paycheck or paying association dues does not translate into allegiance. So, one of the critical tasks for government relations professionals is to create an emotional allegiance strategy. OK, we are off that soapbox. What are some strategies for getting PAC contributions when your prospects can easily use the “tough economy” as the objection du jour? Harness Their Ideologies There are many ways to keep contributions rolling in, even during tough times. One way is to appeal to your PAC prospects’ ideologies. Kelton addressed this topic during his “Ideological Influence” workstorm at the 2008 Innovate to Motivate conference: “When people face doubt and despair, they ‘go ideological.’ They cling to their ideologies in times of trouble.” For example, whether there was any real “coming together” in the immediate wake of September 11 is debatable; factions emerged almost immediately. Some families of 9/11 victims were immediately calling for an armed response; others were just as quickly organizing peace rallies and war protests. Facing a surprise attack, an uncertain future, and an ambiguous enemy, most Americans ran to their ideologies for guidance on how to respond. This tells us that successful fundraisers need to understand and harness their audiences’ ideologies. Using the same arguments to persuade hundreds or thousands of potential PAC contributors isn’t a wise move. We must segment our audiences according to their value systems, or at least restrict our messages to arguments that most value systems would support. Collecting value system information and using it to segment can be challenging, but can be done with careful research, some of which asks oblique questions that are known to correlate with known value systems. Armed with such research, the requestor can have a much better idea of what types of arguments are likely to play well with their various audiences. Speaking to audiences in the language they will accept is an important part of the persuasion process. Patriotism Doesn’t Work Using tired patriotic bromides, while popular, hasn’t proved to be a persuasive tactic. (And Amy admits that she used her share before she “knew better.”) We have noticed this with clients who ask us to do PAC and/or grassroots message testing and framing research. In ten years, we personally have never had a PAC contributor tell us that pride in America or patriotism was a rationale for their PAC contribution. Because each client project has its’ own variables, we didn’t make a generalized conclusion from that until. . . an analysis of years of data across a very diverse client base showed there was a pattern. However, what usually appears on PAC promotional materials? You got it, great photos of the flag, the U.S. Capitol, and of course the required patriotic quotes. Why? Because it inspires us. But we aren’t the audience. Is overuse of this technique one of the reasons that the percent of PAC participation has remained relatively stagnant over the past 20 years, despite an onslaught of sharing (and stealing) “best practices?” We think it’s a big contributor. Now, before you become violent, there’s nothing wrong with injecting patriotism into your request; however, it’s quite common, yet we don’t see a big uptick in PAC contributions as a result. In fact, in Dr. Frank Luntz’s book “Words that Work,” he documents that using patriotism to sell products, services, or ideas falls flat with most audiences, especially those under age 30. The bottom line? Look at the big picture, conduct solid research to harness ideologies and values, and wave the flag, but don’t wrap yourself in it. Amy Showalter is a national grassroots and PAC consultant who works with organizations that want to increase their PAC and grassroots effectiveness. www.showaltergroup.com/513.762.7668.
New Research Results: How Your Audience Uses Media Can Impact Decisions about Grassroots and PAC Participation I have found some outside research that should be of interest to anyone who needs to get the attention of their audience. Some of you may find yourself in this group. Ketchum, a global PR company, conducted research with USC’s Annenberg Strategic Public Relations Center regarding how consumers use media. Their findings have immediate applications to those of us in the government relations profession, which you will see in my commentary after I outline a couple of the findings. TSG has been admonishing the profession for quite some time that people rely most on personal experiences, word of mouth, and friends when making decisions. They rely on it not only for what kind of shampoo to buy or where to vacation, but also on who to vote for, whether to give to your PAC, or whether to get involved in your grassroots efforts. Ketchum has found that the way communicators provide information is out of sync with the way people use media, according to Media, Myths, and Realities, a comprehensive survey of media usage among consumers and communications professionals. They examined the use of more than 40 media channels. http://www.ketchum.com/node/1131 Friends Matter What is the number one source the people turn to in making a variety of decisions? Advice from family and friends. Advice from an expert ranks high for making medical decisions and purchases based on a product’s environmental impact. Amy’s Reality Check: The Public Affairs Council’s corporate PAC benchmarking report showed that 94% of respondents believe that face-to- face contact such as small group and one-on-one meetings were the most effective way to raise money for PAC’s. Those are forms of word-of-mouth campaigns, so that’s good news. However, when asked what solicitation techniques they most frequently use, e-mail came in first at 72%, followed by small group meetings (which decreased by 8% from the previous election cycle). “One-on-one meetings” fell from 44% in the previous cycle to 31%. What about Your Website & Podcasts? Regarding company websites, according to the Ketchum study, the communicators ranked their company website as the “most effective way to share corporate news or issue a response to crisis,” but consumers ranked company websites sixth and seventh among places they turn to for news and crisis response. Be wary of the communication “flavor of the month.” Ketchum advises to be sure to stay on top of the latest research and avoid becoming reliant on any single communication technique regardless of how “new or exciting it may seem.” For example, podcast use is registering in the single digit range with the exception of the 18 to 24 age group. That age group experienced an increase in podcast use from 8% to 13%. “This year’s findings magnify the point of last year’s benchmark survey which showed that communications professionals need to vigorously reassess their communications priorities to meet consumers’ needs in this multimedia channel world,” said Nicholas Scibetta, Ketchum Senior Vice President and Global Director, Global Media Network. “Communicators must focus on speaking to individuals, not just broadcasting to the masses when getting their messages across to this new “public of one.” Amy’s Reality Check: While your members and/or employees likely visit your advocacy or PAC web pages for information, it’s best not to rely on it entirely, and especially when there is a crisis or bad news to report. The most accurate way to determine how they want information is, shockingly, to ask them. However, rather than asking your stakeholders how they want to receive information, ask them how they received information that they acted on. It’s always more reliable to test past behavior than future behavior. Humans are notoriously biased when it comes to predicting their own behavior. Here’s one of my absolute favorite examples. When PAC prospects are asked how they want to receive PAC information, they will, as sure as the sun rises, say “we want emails.” But that answer has nothing to do with whether they will contribute to the PAC. (which is why I never, ever ask PAC prospects this question in my client research projects) I have sat speechless (you know that’s rare) with amazement in meetings where consultants wave this info around like it’s the panacea for increasing PAC contributions. In fact, my colleague, Dr Kelton Rhoads, reminds us that, ”While email is usually cited as the most preferred type of communication, it’s also ranked as the most ignored type of communication.” Regarding media channels, I have been forced against my will to sit through entire workshops devoted to government relations podcasting as the next influence breakthrough. After understanding this research, that is probably not the best use of our time. Although worthy of investigation and something you may want to provide to members, it looks like it may be a “downstream” issue, akin to discussions over the color of your conference name badge ribbons and the order of speakers at your fundraiser, not something that should be given high priority in terms of time or money. The Bottom Line Create and institute a powerful word-of- mouth communications strategy. What is critical, according to John Kleinberg, who has conducted extensive research on the algorithms of social networks, is the number of people you have communicating on your behalf, the credibility of the messenger and that messengers’ connections. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscriber Information This free newsletter is designed to provide beneficial information for those involved in leading grassroots and PAC change. The email list was not purchased. The list is made up of people visiting/registering at our web site and asking for more information, personal contacts, and our speaking audience members. We will not willfully disclose your email address to any outside party without your consent. To continue receiving the ROOTS OF SUCCESS simply watch your email box for the next issue. If you do not wish to receive future issues of the ROOTS OF SUCCESS, click to send an email to UNSUBSCRIBE@showaltergroup.com. Please forward this email to others that may benefit. If you have received a forwarded copy, click here to register to receive direct copies in the future. This material is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. Contact us for rights and guidelines to use this material in trade publications, newsletters, or on your Intranet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Showalter Group 513-762-7668 http://www.showaltergroup.com
|